I don't think it does. It's not in different text or anything, it is bold because the title is the keyword, and they have tons of links in every single article, and are so easily indexed. Perhaps the bot just likes it better? :X
Wikipedia is funny, whoever got to start losing their life as an editor there earlier is the owner pretty much. Anything a guest ads will be deleted. Guaranteed. I added a link to physicsforums.com which is not even my site and it got deleted even though the same page listed a link to www.physicsandmathforums.com funny. bet one of those editors would accept some $$$ to have a link placed on a page eh?
It's a place of corruption. I say we write blogs and posts about it all over the place giving it a bad reputation . Seriously, they deserve it. Sometimes it has great information though. But usually because the writer loves to talk about the subject he's promoting. But on subjects about negative to other things, even in history, they exaggerate, and make false information. You shouldn't be making any old person a member/editor just because they supported the website. Seriously, no one has the right authority over knowledge, even professors are COMPLETELY wrong sometimes.
I think Wikipedia is an awesome project and I utilize it as a source of dependable open source information. I think I read somewhere that Google owns Wikipedia. Anyone have any knowledge of this?
No kidding, I can't believe the comments I'm reading here, we're not victims here, it's a great idea Google is doing that, especially whenever you search for something "keyword + information", rather than terms that are commercial.
Do you think that people who work writing content to get money loves wikipedia? Why wikipedia information is better than the information of your website? You are an expert of your topic ... wikipedia is the non expert in every subject ... :-o
No, we are victims. Because, wikipedia is crap information sometimes, it should not be trusted all the time. Everything looks credible but sometimes false information always sneaks in. I've seen it in many of their articles, When i try to do something about it, it gets deleted or whatever. But you're only a blogger, so I don't think you would care whether wikipedia is above your blog.
think of it this way, if your competitor is a old wikipedia editor he will get a free PR6-PR8 backlink and you won't because if you try adding your site, which is a good source he will immediatly remove it Or someone else will because you don't spend all day on wikipedia adding stuff.
I dont think the issue is whether or not wiki is a reliable source of information but whether google should be giving it artificial rankings. If i want to use wiki ill search my term on the site. If I want to find a no. of different sites on the matter I'll use google. google are doing something they said they stood against!
I'll reinforce my point with this example: Search phrase: "nottingham university information" brings wiki page first (pr5) 27 links (mostly internal from wiki) 1 web page dedicated to topic and the official Nottingham university website 2nd!! pr8 7,670 backlinks 620,000 pages in website (*** thats a lot!) Plus i believe that the official website is likely to be more accurate than people wrtiting about the University I think we can be fairly certain that the official university website is going to be of greater relevence to anyone searching that given term. Foul play google ------ RED CARD!!! Agree/Disagree?
Totally agree, wiki probably paid google or something? This is really stupid we should all write a letter of dissaproval. =\
I would disagree about up-to-date and far from accurate. Do you realize how many rumors and false info comes from wikipedia?
People write articles to sneak in their politicial views, ideas, and beliefs. Not because they just happen to have free time on their hands to write articles for free!
Ok, you anti-wiki people have convinced me. I'd much rather see your MAF sites in the first position for these informational searches that are "sometimes always innacurate".
I'm not totally anti-wiki, but it does show up in some searches, where it doesn't really belong (or is only mildly relevant) google search: gnomes here's wiki's page. Wiki does have a better gnome page available, though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underpants_Gnomes I'm #6 for gnomes, so I'm not totally upset, but still..that particular page on wiki doesn't really fit.